I seem to recall something on the lines of Elon proposing that a 6m Falcon could be built at Hawthorne. I've looked at google and it's not really far from a port. In fact it seems there's an avenue that goes straight to port. The pictures of the factory seem to show a place big enough for a lot. Obviously they would need bigger tooling, and a sea going transport. But in any information on other limitations?BTW, they could build a 7.2m fairing (if they had the tooling)? I mean, a half is less than 12.5 feet high for road transport, but the with would be impressive (24ft)

I seem to recall something on the lines of Elon proposing that a 6m Falcon could be built at Hawthorne. I've looked at google and it's not really far from a port. In fact it seems there's an avenue that goes straight to port. The pictures of the factory seem to show a place big enough for a lot. Obviously they would need bigger tooling, and a sea going transport. But in any information on other limitations?BTW, they could build a 7.2m fairing (if they had the tooling)? I mean, a half is less than 12.5 feet high for road transport, but the with would be impressive (24ft)

8m would be too big for rail lines, but If you can get it to the port you can roll it onto a ship at a Ro/Ro pier. Charter a heavy lift ship with its own cranes, like BBC Alaska (http://www.bbc-chartering.com/uploads/tx_bbcfleetlist/07%20BBC_Maine_type.pdf), and all you have to do is drive the stage up next to it.

I seem to recall something on the lines of Elon proposing that a 6m Falcon could be built at Hawthorne. I've looked at google and it's not really far from a port. In fact it seems there's an avenue that goes straight to port.

There isn't a port near by. Long Beach is the closest and there isn't path to it for that size

I seem to recall something on the lines of Elon proposing that a 6m Falcon could be built at Hawthorne. I've looked at google and it's not really far from a port. In fact it seems there's an avenue that goes straight to port.

There isn't a port near by. Long Beach is the closest and there isn't path to it for that size

I'm not convinced that's really true. I moved something 4.8m in diameter from a mountain on the North shore of Oahu to Denver.

It wouldn't be easy and it would certainly require significant permitting and possibly some night road closures, but having looked at the route, I think it could be done if it had to be.

I'm not saying that's necessarily practical or what they are planning, I'm just saying you'd be surprised what size equipment can be moved over the roads if you have the time and money to get it done. There are whole companies that specialize in doing exactly this sort of thing.

I seem to recall something on the lines of Elon proposing that a 6m Falcon could be built at Hawthorne. I've looked at google and it's not really far from a port. In fact it seems there's an avenue that goes straight to port.

There isn't a port near by. Long Beach is the closest and there isn't path to it for that size

I'm not convinced that's really true. I moved something 4.8m in diameter from a mountain on the North shore of Oahu to Denver.

It wouldn't be easy and it would certainly require significant permitting and possibly some night road closures, but having looked at the route, I think it could be done if it had to be.

I'm not saying that's necessarily practical or what they are planning, I'm just saying you'd be surprised what size equipment can be moved over the roads if you have the time and money to get it done. There are whole companies that specialize in doing exactly this sort of thing.

I had the chance to see a couple of times how they move a turbine for a power plant. The truck that carried it was pretty huge (at least the trailer was), it was 2-3 lanes wide. The thing traveled at about 15km/h and had a sizeable escort including police cars. Obviously the road was closed during the move.

I've looked up in google and there are two small bridges that look like a no go. Very difficult indeed. The fact was that I think I recall Elon saying that he could use Michaud for a 10m core. But he also spoke of a 6m core. So I was wondering if they considered they could do it with their current factory. Obviously it's an hypothetical question, since I don't expect anything bigger than the FH at least until 2020.

I seem to recall something on the lines of Elon proposing that a 6m Falcon could be built at Hawthorne. I've looked at google and it's not really far from a port. In fact it seems there's an avenue that goes straight to port.

There isn't a port near by. Long Beach is the closest and there isn't path to it for that size

I'm not convinced that's really true. I moved something 4.8m in diameter from a mountain on the North shore of Oahu to Denver.

It wouldn't be easy and it would certainly require significant permitting and possibly some night road closures, but having looked at the route, I think it could be done if it had to be.

I'm not saying that's necessarily practical or what they are planning, I'm just saying you'd be surprised what size equipment can be moved over the roads if you have the time and money to get it done. There are whole companies that specialize in doing exactly this sort of thing.

I had the chance to see a couple of times how they move a turbine for a power plant. The truck that carried it was pretty huge (at least the trailer was), it was 2-3 lanes wide. The thing traveled at about 15km/h and had a sizeable escort including police cars. Obviously the road was closed during the move.

Definitely possible.

You are assuming that all the roads are at least 2 lines wide to get to the port. Remember the LA has a lot of roads but maybe not all the roads are available.

The Hawthore building really doesn't appear suited to large-diameter stages even if they could get it across town, unless Elon massively expands and signs on with a cargo Zeppelin company to move stages around they're likely going to be looking at another facility for large stage work.

I don't think Michoud itself is feasible as long as the SLS war is ongoing, but I could certainly see SpaceX buying/building/leasing on a navigable waterway. Plenty of closed naval stations and shipyards out there.

IIRC it's been mentioned (at NASAWatch (http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2011/04/china-has-limit.html)) that an empty F9 first stage masses about 10T but dunno if that's with or without the engine cluster. Supposedly S-C can handle 9T and MI-26 20T.

A stock An-225 has demonstrated carrying a 7.75m wide 58m long Energyia 2nd stage. It weighted some 78tn, but the Anatov could carry 150tn easily. But how much does it costs? Wikipedia says that one transport was Euro 266k in 2008. So let's say that it costs 500k. If we talk about a Falcon X class, the launch cost should be around 150M, so a flight to Stennis for acceptance (or other test stand), plus another flight to KSC that's a 0.7% of the launch cost in transport. But they would keep the old factory, so no relocation cost. And less overhead. I guess airlift is not a bad option for a low rate of flight. It might also happen, that the cost of that flight was less because the An-225 is based of Ukraine, so the first airlift was less. But if it has to come to the US, it might cost more like 1M, in which case putting a new factory close to a port might not be a bad idea, since tooling has to be new, anyways.

A stock An-225 has demonstrated carrying a 7.75m wide 58m long Energyia 2nd stage. It weighted some 78tn, but the Anatov could carry 150tn easily. But how much does it costs? Wikipedia says that one transport was Euro 266k in 2008. So let's say that it costs 500k. If we talk about a Falcon X class, the launch cost should be around 150M, so a flight to Stennis for acceptance (or other test stand), plus another flight to KSC that's a 0.7% of the launch cost in transport. But they would keep the old factory, so no relocation cost. And less overhead. I guess airlift is not a bad option for a low rate of flight. It might also happen, that the cost of that flight was less because the An-225 is based of Ukraine, so the first airlift was less. But if it has to come to the US, it might cost more like 1M, in which case putting a new factory close to a port might not be a bad idea, since tooling has to be new, anyways.

Yeah, but where would you take it off from? The runway at the facility is nowhere near long enough. So you'd have to transport over-land anyway.

Then again, if they do build in Texas they could barge big stages to the Cape.

If SpaceX builds in South Texas, figure they would do both a new launchpad and a new production facility. So it would only take a short road trip through non-populated area to a pad from production facility (probably near Corpus Christi).

Yeah, but where would you take it off from? The runway at the facility is nowhere near long enough. So you'd have to transport over-land anyway.

That's the reason I was sugjesting the A300-600ST Beluga it can use standard runways, and the stages of a rocket sans engines are not that much heavier than aircraft frames.

It still needs up to 3,000 feet of runway they don't have.

How heavy would this be? Could you use an airship to transport from Hawthorne to a port location? Perhaps ridiculous using the oldest flying technology to transport the most modern, but could you lift and control a short duration flight to deploy a 25 ft wide rocket? If nothing else, it would look awesome.

I know your comment was only half serious, but I can see tank, dome and fairing fabrication over 4m moving to FL or TX. But I'm guessing Hawthorne would continue to do Dragon, Merlins, Dracos, etc. Too much talent at Hawthorne to lose half of them with a factory move.

I know your comment was only half serious, but I can see tank, dome and fairing fabrication over 4m moving to FL or TX. But I'm guessing Hawthorne would continue to do Dragon, Merlins, Dracos, etc. Too much talent at Hawthorne to lose half of them with a factory move.

Not an issue. Other vehicles have moved. Shuttle from Huntington Beach to Houston. Delta II to Decatur. Atlas from San Diego to Denver to Decatur.

I'd like to expand on my previous post, since upon further research this seems really possible.

The Mi-26 is available for rent in the US and the pricing is reasonable. It seems it's lift capacity is in the range of what is needed.It probably at least can transport the stage from factory to barge.

I'd like to expand on my previous post, since upon further research this seems really possible.

The Mi-26 is available for rent in the US and the pricing is reasonable. It seems it's lift capacity is in the range of what is needed.It probably at least can transport the stage from factory to barge.

This pic below really convinced me.

No. A 6 m stage would weigh a lot more than 20 tons. I think SpaceX would need more than one Jess Heavy Lifter. Falcon 9 has a first stage fueled to dry weight ratio of just over 20. Scale that up to get a rough idea. Jess Heavy Lifter is apparently waiting on an installment of $100 million. Given the times, unless Elon is willing to invest with Pete Jess and their partner Boeing, the scenario is unlikely. Maybe after Tesla begins to pay out dividends neutral bouyancy airships will be examined. Unless the timing of JHL availability coincides with the need (which is possible) it's more likely that they'll do it somewhere with easy access to a coast.

The most sensible place to build Big stages would be next to the launch pad ie Build at the cape. Theres plenty of room, a good work force and minimal transport problems. The engines, avionics etc could be shipped in from hawthorne.

The most sensible place to build Big stages would be next to the launch pad ie Build at the cape. Theres plenty of room, a good work force and minimal transport problems. The engines, avionics etc could be shipped in from hawthorne.

No, it is a bad place for it. There are frequent shutdowns due to launches and other hazardous ops

I'd like to expand on my previous post, since upon further research this seems really possible.

The Mi-26 is available for rent in the US and the pricing is reasonable. It seems it's lift capacity is in the range of what is needed.It probably at least can transport the stage from factory to barge.

This pic below really convinced me.

No. A 6 m stage would weigh a lot more than 20 tons. I think SpaceX would need more than one Jess Heavy Lifter. Falcon 9 has a first stage fueled to dry weight ratio of just over 20. Scale that up to get a rough idea. Jess Heavy Lifter is apparently waiting on an installment of $100 million. Given the times, unless Elon is willing to invest with Pete Jess and their partner Boeing, the scenario is unlikely. Maybe after Tesla begins to pay out dividends neutral bouyancy airships will be examined. Unless the timing of JHL availability coincides with the need (which is possible) it's more likely that they'll do it somewhere with easy access to a coast.

No. A 6 m stage would weigh a lot more than 20 tons. I think SpaceX would need more than one Jess Heavy Lifter. Falcon 9 has a first stage fueled to dry weight ratio of just over 20. Scale that up to get a rough idea. Jess Heavy Lifter is apparently waiting on an installment of $100 million. Given the times, unless Elon is willing to invest with Pete Jess and their partner Boeing, the scenario is unlikely. Maybe after Tesla begins to pay out dividends neutral bouyancy airships will be examined. Unless the timing of JHL availability coincides with the need (which is possible) it's more likely that they'll do it somewhere with easy access to a coast.

We are discussing transportations issues with a highway-oversized diameter (like 6 meter or larger diameter stage). The falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy stages are only 3.66 meters in diameter. Even if you assumed that they were the same length, the extra surface area of the larger diameter tanks, and extra/beefier engines/pumps/plumbing, would push it above 25000 kg. (pi)*(r^2)*h. plus extras like bigger common bulkhead, etc.

For F9/FH stages, they throw them on a low boy trailer (now with aerodymanic ends and a frame for protective black cloth), and send it down the highway. No need for really fancy/unique transport solutions with F9. It's diameter was designed with that in mind.

Garrett Reisman talks about SpaceX infrastructure in Florida, including possible future production facilities:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvE9AuGSBqk

At about 1:22:00 he says: "...if given the opportunity to compete for the super launch, the heavy lift vehicle, we have preliminary plans to build those tanks...right next to our facility at the launch pad"

It's hard to say exactly what he means by "right next to", but I thinks it's safe to say it's not California or Texas.

Sounds like they want to keep engine production at Hawthorne, but build larger (than current) tanks as close to the pad as possible.

It's hard to say exactly what he means by "right next to", but I thinks it's safe to say it's not California or Texas.

Thanks for the video!

He explicitly says "Here in Florida" in the context of making tanks for the heavy lift (F-XX type) vehicle. So not Cali or Texas. Probably not on the range (as Jim says). But where would a logical place be? Near Titusville somewhere? Based on that video, it appears SpaceX does not plan to buy or lease Michoud.

How about location in the area that would allow easy transport to the pad?

There are industrial parks all over the area.

Doing it on the range and having to stop production every time ULA decides to run up the flag seems a bit much.

I hear Playalinda would have a great view ;)

Yea, I'd probably guess by "right next to the pad", they mean someplace in Florida near that pad, that could be easily transported to the pad.Also, if they build FX cores at some point, those might be launching from KSC rather than LC-40. So maybe a new facility somewhere near the space coast, but so that it could also be barged up to the turning bay by KSC. It could go to the VAB or to LC-40 from there. (I'm not familiar enough with the geography of the area to know if there's a place you could unload a barge closer to LC-40, or if you could truck 6m cores from a nearby facility to LC-40 or KSC.)

Also, back in Hawthorne, I'd imagine not only would they continue to do engines and the capsules, but continue the 3.6m cores for F9 and FH at Vandenberg, as well as any launches of them at the Cape. A new facility in Florida would probably just have the hardware to bend metal for the 6m cores. (although, I suppose they could make it so they can do both 3.6m cores and 6m cores in Florida for all Cape launches, and then continue the 3.6m cores for VAFB launches. That'd cut down on their logistics. Engines are pretty easy to truck to they'd probably have all engine production consolidated in Hawthorne.)

Texas would actually work to if they had easy coast access, so they could load their cores on a barge and ship them to the Cape. It's a longer float, but probably not prohibitively so.

Anyone have any idea if a Merlin 2 size engine can be truck from Hawthorne to Texas and Florida assembled?

If it's approximated F-1 size then yes, probably.

You can always ship the Engine and the nozzle extension separated. You put the engine horizontal and the nozzle extension vertical and you can get quite a bit of engine. You only need that the regen part of the engine be no more than 12.5ft wide, and the nozzle extension no more than 12.5ft long. If will be oversized on the width sense. But that's a lot more manageable.

At about 1:22:00 he says: "...if given the opportunity to compete for the super launch, the heavy lift vehicle, we have preliminary plans to build those tanks...right next to our facility at the launch pad"

It's hard to say exactly what he means by "right next to", but I thinks it's safe to say it's not California or Texas.

Sounds like they want to keep engine production at Hawthorne, but build larger (than current) tanks as close to the pad as possible.

These are "preliminary plans", of course.

Watched part of this and got impression SpaceX was talking about the hanger they just leased. But will have to check into the rest later.

Found Senator Nelsons remarks pure BS. He gave out a set of layoff numbers, less than I heard from NASA directly at the shuttle briefings. Said those numbers would come back up soon.

Anyone have any idea if a Merlin 2 size engine can be truck from Hawthorne to Texas and Florida assembled?

If it's approximated F-1 size then yes, probably.

If it's about the weight of the F-1, then it's dry mass is about 8.4mt.So you are ok mass-wise. Probably could ship a couple on a single trailer. The problem would be the nozzles. The F-1 nozzel was about 12.2 ft wide, and I think most trailers are only about 8.5 ft wide. But you could probably get a Wide Load permit for the difference. If the nozzle isn't a single cast piece (have not idea how a Merlin 2 nozzle would be made), and if you could like ship two halves to be assembledin TX for testing, and/or in Florida, then they should be able to go in a single standard sized trailer.

Or they could go by rail or transport plane. I don't knwo the rail specifications to know if they could be shipped whole on rail or not. If SpaceX could rent or lease a cargo plane that could land at the airfield next to Hawthorne (big if), then they could just fly the engines to TX for testing, then on to Florida for integration.

Anyone have any idea if a Merlin 2 size engine can be truck from Hawthorne to Texas and Florida assembled?

If it's approximated F-1 size then yes, probably.

If it's about the weight of the F-1, then it's dry mass is about 8.4mt.So you are ok mass-wise. Probably could ship a couple on a single trailer. The problem would be the nozzles. The F-1 nozzel was about 12.2 ft wide, and I think most trailers are only about 8.5 ft wide. But you could probably get a Wide Load permit for the difference. If the nozzle isn't a single cast piece (have not idea how a Merlin 2 nozzle would be made), and if you could like ship two halves to be assembledin TX for testing, and/or in Florida, then they should be able to go in a single standard sized trailer.

Or they could go by rail or transport plane. I don't knwo the rail specifications to know if they could be shipped whole on rail or not. If SpaceX could rent or lease a cargo plane that could land at the airfield next to Hawthorne (big if), then they could just fly the engines to TX for testing, then on to Florida for integration.

You can ship stuff that's 4.2m in diameter over the road and 3.8m in diameter over the rails, without going to something extremely unusual (ordinary wide-load permits for roads, etc.).

You can ship stuff that's 4.2m in diameter over the road and 3.8m in diameter over the rails, without going to something extremely unusual (ordinary wide-load permits for roads, etc.).

OK, I'm not familiar with all the rules and regs. If you can ship 4.2m wide over the road with ordinary wide-load permits, then you'd be ok width wise to do that, as long as the Merlin 2 is close to the F-1's dimensions and weight.

Weight should be a problem, especially if you were just hauling one per trailer. (Which would seem likely, as they are valuable cargo).

The next problem would be height. If the nozzle was 12.2 ft in diameter at the widest, YOu'd be tight. A double drop trailer can haul around 11 ft, 8 inches. I'm not sure if theres, anything lower that that.I suppose there would be "tall load" permitting too. Just have to plan your route to make sure you aren't going upder an bridges that are too low. I saw a truck hauling a crane literally hit an overpass and wedge under it. IT tore the crane arm back and snapped a bunch of the cables. It was a big mess. They had to restrict traffic accross that bridge for some time until they could do a structural ananlysis on it to make sure it hadn't been too badly damaged.

So maybe the nozzle could be separated from the motor and the two shipped next to each other so that you wouldn't run into those height issues.

The 4.2m thing over the road is about height, not width. You can go well over 5m wide.

Ahhh, I misunderstood.

Well then, if a Merlin 2 is about the same size and weight as an F-1 (a reasonable assumption I think, as they are similar in performance and both kerolox) then yes, they could be easily transported via truck with standard oversized load permits. If you transport them vertically, you could probably get two on a double drop trailer. But I wouldn't be surprised if they just put one per trailer to make sure they weren't packed in there too tight, and to allow pleanty of room for whatever protective cradles and packaging they use. And if your engines are several million each, you can afford a truck from each one. ;-)

And also, if you lost a truck in an accident or something, you would risk damaging just one engine, not two.

The F-1 was transported on a special trailer, with the engine horizontal and the nozzle extension separated on vertical position (or was slanted? gotta see the F1 book again). That's why I proposed the same system for the Merlin. You can offer a lot better protection for the critical engine, and still move the nozzle extension in one piece.

It's hard to see without specific numbers, but the infamous SpaceX propulsion PDF's that were leaked/released a while back with speculative Raptor & Merlin 2 info seemed to indicate that the Merlin 2 nozzle would be slightly larger than the F-1 nozzle. The nozzle seems to be ~15 ft in diameter from my eye approximation. But the slideshow had no hard figures.

The F-1 was transported on a special trailer, with the engine horizontal and the nozzle extension separated on vertical position (or was slanted? gotta see the F1 book again). That's why I proposed the same system for the Merlin. You can offer a lot better protection for the critical engine, and still move the nozzle extension in one piece.

Another thread in the the section mentioned the F9's first stage might weight at around 12 tonnes. So I'm tempted to believe a 6 meter core can be transported by a helicopter.

Do you think a 6 or 8 meter core can make sense? I can't believe Spacex will make another launcher so it's base configuration will not be significantly more powerful than a FH, not enough bang per buck.

Do you think a 6 or 8 meter core can make sense? I can't believe Spacex will make another launcher so it's base configuration will not be significantly more powerful than a FH, not enough bang per buck.

Agree.

And not just FH, but FH with all likely upgrades like a LOX/LH2 US since that would be a cheaper growth path.

You'd also think a Merlin 2 would be a prerequisite for a larger core, since the number of Merlin 1s on such a beast would be unwieldy even for SpaceX, probably more than FH for just one core.

The main reason for the Merlin 2 (besides a FX/XX), would be that most clients would consider it too unreliable. If they can get enough rate to show a good track record, then it might not be that important. Specially if it performs as well as they are hinting.In any case, you could easily put 19 Merlin 1D on a 6m core. That should be enough (2.66Mlbf). Would you launch on that? Statistics really work against you. Unless SpaceX demonstrates the most catastrophic failures modes on a bench test, I still don't believe engine out.

Why not just build out a second production facility in TX once the engine reaches that maturation point and flight rates are assured. Starts to feel very NASA when you have production, testing, integration and launch facilitss spread out across the country...Does not seem as efficient as their vertically integrated model would appear..

Why not just build out a second production facility in TX once the engine reaches that maturation point and flight rates are assured. Starts to feel very NASA when you have production, testing, integration and launch facilitss spread out across the country...Does not seem as efficient as their vertically integrated model would appear..

Better yet, move everything to VAFB. Every orbit that really matters can be reached from it (Polar, ISS, GEO, even BEO). The Falcon 9 is undersized even from the cape for most GTO. Most commercial will go on the Heavy anyway, and it has performance to spare.

Better yet, move everything to VAFB. Every orbit that really matters can be reached from it (Polar, ISS, GEO, even BEO). The Falcon 9 is undersized even from the cape for most GTO. Most commercial will go on the Heavy anyway, and it has performance to spare.

Sorry, your way more knowledgeable than I am so I have to ask. You honestly think the Falcon Heavy will be the more popular product than the Falcon 9 for commercial payloads? I thought most commercial payloads where below 8MT.

Better yet, move everything to VAFB. Every orbit that really matters can be reached from it (Polar, ISS, GEO, even BEO). The Falcon 9 is undersized even from the cape for most GTO. Most commercial will go on the Heavy anyway, and it has performance to spare.

A quick look at a map suggests that launch from SpaceX's SLC-4 site to an ISS orbit would involve on the order of a 5 mile dog-leg maneuver to avoid overflying civilian land just after launch. Is that correct?

Sorry, your way more knowledgeable than I am so I have to ask. You honestly think the Falcon Heavy will be the more popular product than the Falcon 9 for commercial payloads? I thought most commercial payloads where below 8MT.

Remember Mr. Musk said, he expects to fly about 20 rockets a year, half of which are heavies. Now, the DOD fly's maybe one Delta Heavy a year, sometimes even two. So who will be buying a ride on the other nine? GEO comsats are getting heavier.

Now it is unlikely that they will drop to only one pad, but it is worth noting they maybe talking about a third pad so they have two pads for GEO, ISS ops. Launching ISS/GEO missions from VAFB would give them the extra pad they need. It will also allow them to convert SLC-40 for the heavy while still flying the ISS/GEO missions. Remember Dragon is volume not mass limited.

Of course for GEO this assumes they can produce an upper stage that lives long enough to carry out a bielliptical transfer orbit mission.

Jumping back a bit to the discussion of moving large stages by road, here's a pic of an S-II being moved down Seal Beach Blvd. from the North American facility at Seal Beach NWS to the port facility for shipment to MTS and then KSC.

Certainly if you are close enough to the shore and the road is wide and free of obstruction, you ought to be able to move any conceivable stage as needed. SpaceX might be able to build or repurpose a facility near a port in Southern California and not have to transfer production operations to another state.

Obviously, political and tax/economic considerations will influence this decision as well.

Speaking as someone who lived in Northern Alabama for several years, I can't recall anyone ever calling Decatur "attractive". Better river access than Huntsville maybe, but damn if it isn't one of the ugliest towns I've ever seen...

If SpaceX want to develop a vehicle larger than Falcon H it may be easier to cluster the appropriate number of Falcon 9 cores, sent to the launch site by road, as they are now.

Given that 40 of these airships are on order be delivered in 2014 to Canada (I think that it's in support of oil shale extraction ops), I submit that they will exist in the near future commercially. I know that the development prototypes are flying now.

The usefulness of one these for SpaceX pre flight operations would depend on it's cost and capability. The units claim to be able to lift 30 tons vertically. Would a 30 ton vertical takeoff limit be sufficient to lift an unfueled but integrated F9 or FH? Does anyone have a ballpark cost for a Hybrid Air Vehicle?

More importantly, can you lift full an unfueled F9/FH with sling loading, or would it fold/spindle/mutilate in the process? ;D

I've seen information on these which suggests that carrying cargo externally is possible for some distance, but at what range penalty, I don't know. I suspect that carrying the launcher externally is the only possibility.

If this is cost effective and has enough lift capability and an F9/FH can survive the trip, a lot more launch sites become available.

Don't forget the strong back or support structure to actually carry and protect the first stage.BTW, the page says

Quote

"Crane" type ops - lift of up to 90 tonnes vertically.

A Falcon Heavy booster has a 0.966 of fuel mass. Of the 480tn for the 16tn to LEO, if we subtract the 16tn of payload, and assume that the whole US is 1/8 of the total weight, we'd reach 406tn first stage fully fueled. If you multiply by 0.004, you'd get 16.24tn. ::)If you assume that the support structure would weight 35% of the whole stage, that would allow for a 4 times heavier first stage. If they can keep the T/W, that could be a 7.2m wide first stage, for example.

Given that 40 of these airships are on order be delivered in 2014 to Canada (I think that it's in support of oil shale extraction ops), I submit that they will exist in the near future commercially. I know that the development prototypes are flying now.

The usefulness of one these for SpaceX pre flight operations would depend on it's cost and capability. The units claim to be able to lift 30 tons vertically. Would a 30 ton vertical takeoff limit be sufficient to lift an unfueled but integrated F9 or FH? Does anyone have a ballpark cost for a Hybrid Air Vehicle?

More importantly, can you lift full an unfueled F9/FH with sling loading, or would it fold/spindle/mutilate in the process? ;D

I've seen information on these which suggests that carrying cargo externally is possible for some distance, but at what range penalty, I don't know. I suspect that carrying the launcher externally is the only possibility.

If this is cost effective and has enough lift capability and an F9/FH can survive the trip, a lot more launch sites become available.

F9 first stage best guess is 20-25 tons. That leaves some margin for a carrying platform, so it wouldn't have to be slung directly to the airship.

Given that 40 of these airships are on order be delivered in 2014 to Canada (I think that it's in support of oil shale extraction ops), I submit that they will exist in the near future commercially. I know that the development prototypes are flying now.

The usefulness of one these for SpaceX pre flight operations would depend on it's cost and capability. The units claim to be able to lift 30 tons vertically. Would a 30 ton vertical takeoff limit be sufficient to lift an unfueled but integrated F9 or FH? Does anyone have a ballpark cost for a Hybrid Air Vehicle?

More importantly, can you lift full an unfueled F9/FH with sling loading, or would it fold/spindle/mutilate in the process? ;D

I've seen information on these which suggests that carrying cargo externally is possible for some distance, but at what range penalty, I don't know. I suspect that carrying the launcher externally is the only possibility.

If this is cost effective and has enough lift capability and an F9/FH can survive the trip, a lot more launch sites become available.

F9 first stage best guess is 20-25 tons. That leaves some margin for a carrying platform, so it wouldn't have to be slung directly to the airship.

Don't forget the strong back or support structure to actually carry and protect the first stage.BTW, the page says

Quote

"Crane" type ops - lift of up to 90 tonnes vertically.

A Falcon Heavy booster has a 0.966 of fuel mass. Of the 480tn for the 16tn to LEO, if we subtract the 16tn of payload, and assume that the whole US is 1/8 of the total weight, we'd reach 406tn first stage fully fueled. If you multiply by 0.004, you'd get 16.24tn. ::)If you assume that the support structure would weight 35% of the whole stage, that would allow for a 4 times heavier first stage. If they can keep the T/W, that could be a 7.2m wide first stage, for example.

And it also says:

Quote

The hybrid airships are HAV's model 366, which can carry 50 tonnes if they take off horizontally like an airplane and around 30 tonnes if they take off vertically.

;D

In a stationary crane mode you might do 90 tons, but for the long distance transport, the limit is 30 tons. As I understand it, during operations the airship changes the amount of lifting gas it has on board to ascend and descend and it has a limited capability to do that.

http://www.hybridairvehicles.com/hav366.aspx (http://www.hybridairvehicles.com/hav366.aspx) claims a 1250 NM range with a max payload and a max speed around 100 KIAS. I read somewhere that an external load would reduce the range somewhat.

Hmm, the internal bay is only 4M across, so the launcher would definitely be external cargo.

It will be hard for SpaceX to compete with low impact oil and gas operations for moving bulldozers and rigs around. But if they have already made 40, that suggests the ability to make more. It might eventually be available without booking years in advance.

What might make more sense, is for SpaceX to buy one of these things, and rent it out in California for fighting forest fires (dumping 90 tonnes of water would be useful), and other nearby uses. It could offset the cost that way, and still have the thing on hand at short notice for moving stages around. Probably not a go, but might be worth looking into for SpaceX. Though I suspect they would rather make big stages close to the launch pad, or to a coast.

I wonder if this is idea supplanted Pete Jess and his JHL-40, or if the JHL 40 is still planning to come online as competition for this.

I've always thought neutral buoyancy airships and the like are a romantic idea (especially for keeping oil and gas/logging roads out of pristine wilderness areas).

They'll only need it for stages bigger than a F9. This won't happen in 2014 and probably not for a few years after that. If we're talking a 2016-2020 time frame those things can start to be common enough for SpaceX to buy or rent one.

They're also planning a 200 tonne model, so that one could be a real game changer, just imagine hauling a whole stack of falcons direct from the factory.

This news story gives an idea the size of the unmanned vehicle: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12110386

It's a very appealing concept, but a word of caution about large numbers of them being built. Markets for pure airships have been thin. Maybe the hybrids with their versatility and ease of handling will bring them success. We'll see. But if they prove successful large rocket stages could be one of their cargoes, in principle.

Rather than a sling, could a tri-hull be built, with an upper hull above the rocket and twin hulls on each side and a kevlar cradle to hold the rocket. You could slide the rocket out of the warehouse, right into the airship? The transfer process would be much safer than a sling hanging down from the airship. Fly straight to shore, and up to Vandenberg, or to a ship for delivery to KSC. If practical, it would also be a media spectacle with press you couldn't pay for. Anyhow, certainly not on the critical path for SpaceX at this point.

How about location in the area that would allow easy transport to the pad?

There are industrial parks all over the area.

Doing it on the range and having to stop production every time ULA decides to run up the flag seems a bit much.

I hear Playalinda would have a great view ;)

Yea, I'd probably guess by "right next to the pad", they mean someplace in Florida near that pad, that could be easily transported to the pad.Also, if they build FX cores at some point, those might be launching from KSC rather than LC-40. So maybe a new facility somewhere near the space coast, but so that it could also be barged up to the turning bay by KSC. It could go to the VAB or to LC-40 from there. (I'm not familiar enough with the geography of the area to know if there's a place you could unload a barge closer to LC-40, or if you could truck 6m cores from a nearby facility to LC-40 or KSC.)

Also, back in Hawthorne, I'd imagine not only would they continue to do engines and the capsules, but continue the 3.6m cores for F9 and FH at Vandenberg, as well as any launches of them at the Cape. A new facility in Florida would probably just have the hardware to bend metal for the 6m cores. (although, I suppose they could make it so they can do both 3.6m cores and 6m cores in Florida for all Cape launches, and then continue the 3.6m cores for VAFB launches. That'd cut down on their logistics. Engines are pretty easy to truck to they'd probably have all engine production consolidated in Hawthorne.)

Texas would actually work to if they had easy coast access, so they could load their cores on a barge and ship them to the Cape. It's a longer float, but probably not prohibitively so.

Does anyone know if any of the navy bases at jacksonville would be suitable?

Rather than a sling, could a tri-hull be built, with an upper hull above the rocket and twin hulls on each side and a kevlar cradle to hold the rocket. You could slide the rocket out of the warehouse, right into the airship? The transfer process would be much safer than a sling hanging down from the airship. Fly straight to shore, and up to Vandenberg, or to a ship for delivery to KSC. If practical, it would also be a media spectacle with press you couldn't pay for. Anyhow, certainly not on the critical path for SpaceX at this point.

Yes, there have been plans for very large roll on roll off HAV's that could possibly do that. HAV's have short field performance. It's perhaps physically possible that such a craft could land at Hawthorne Municipal Airport next to SpaceX and a large rocket stage could be rolled on. However judging by comments made earlier on this thread it seems unlikely that this would be allowed in such a built up area.

Apologies for bringing this thread back to life after so long, but this appears to be the thread with the most relevant and current information on this topic gathered together.

If SpaceX were to want to build a 10-meter or 12-meter stage and 13-meter or 15-meter max width spaceship at Hawthorne, could it be transported to Long Beach in a cost-effective manner?

Let's assume motivated California development officials, but no big infrastructure additions, like bridges over freeways, etc. Likewise, let's also assume no airships.

For instance, could SpaceX use cranes to get these pieces over the two or three bridges/overpasses? Admittedly, this doesn't seem elegant, cheap, or non-annoying to the good residents of LA County to do this a couple of times a year, but I wonder how expensive it actually would be.

Apologies for bringing this thread back to life after so long, but this appears to be the thread with the most relevant and current information on this topic gathered together.

If SpaceX were to want to build a 10-meter or 12-meter stage and 13-meter or 15-meter max width spaceship at Hawthorne, could it be transported to Long Beach in a cost-effective manner?

Let's assume motivated California development officials, but no big infrastructure additions, like bridges over freeways, etc. Likewise, let's also assume no airships.

For instance, could SpaceX use cranes to get these pieces over the two or three bridges/overpasses? Admittedly, this doesn't seem elegant, cheap, or non-annoying to the good residents of LA County to do this a couple of times a year, but I wonder how expensive it actually would be.

Apologies for bringing this thread back to life after so long, but this appears to be the thread with the most relevant and current information on this topic gathered together.

If SpaceX were to want to build a 10-meter or 12-meter stage and 13-meter or 15-meter max width spaceship at Hawthorne, could it be transported to Long Beach in a cost-effective manner?

Let's assume motivated California development officials, but no big infrastructure additions, like bridges over freeways, etc. Likewise, let's also assume no airships.

For instance, could SpaceX use cranes to get these pieces over the two or three bridges/overpasses? Admittedly, this doesn't seem elegant, cheap, or non-annoying to the good residents of LA County to do this a couple of times a year, but I wonder how expensive it actually would be.

Apologies for bringing this thread back to life after so long, but this appears to be the thread with the most relevant and current information on this topic gathered together.

If SpaceX were to want to build a 10-meter or 12-meter stage and 13-meter or 15-meter max width spaceship at Hawthorne, could it be transported to Long Beach in a cost-effective manner?

Let's assume motivated California development officials, but no big infrastructure additions, like bridges over freeways, etc. Likewise, let's also assume no airships.

For instance, could SpaceX use cranes to get these pieces over the two or three bridges/overpasses? Admittedly, this doesn't seem elegant, cheap, or non-annoying to the good residents of LA County to do this a couple of times a year, but I wonder how expensive it actually would be.

After looking at pictures of Endeavor and the External Tank moving through the streets of Los Angeles from Marina del Rey, I'm absolutely convinced that moving a BFR stage and the spaceship from Hawthorne to port would be perfectly doable... if you are willing to shut down LA for three days. ;)

After looking at pictures of Endeavor and the External Tank moving through the streets of Los Angeles from Marina del Rey, I'm absolutely convinced that moving a BFR stage and the spaceship from Hawthorne to port would be perfectly doable... if you are willing to shut down LA for three days. ;)

The SpaceX facility in Hawthorne is not that close to the route used for the Shuttle ET, although a 5m diameter structure would not need the same room as one that is 8.4m in diameter.

I would think they would be more likely to build such an item at a different location - one with better access to water transportation. Which could be a contractor facility, not one that is SpaceX owned.

??? I guess I'm missing something here (Is this OT??) I thought the plan was to build and launch from south Texas, or is this thread an exercise in speculation? I know it has just been 'reactivated', but thought they were headed this way (to south Texas) back in 2011.

??? I guess I'm missing something here (Is this OT??) I thought the plan was to build and launch from south Texas, or is this thread an exercise in speculation? I know it has just been 'reactivated', but thought they were headed this way (to south Texas) back in 2011.

This thread is an exercise in speculation, but SpaceX has never specified where they are going to build the bigger stages. It's not really out of the question for initial production to happen in LA.

??? I guess I'm missing something here (Is this OT??) I thought the plan was to build and launch from south Texas, or is this thread an exercise in speculation? I know it has just been 'reactivated', but thought they were headed this way (to south Texas) back in 2011.

This thread is an exercise in speculation, but SpaceX has never specified where they are going to build the bigger stages. It's not really out of the question for initial production to happen in LA.

I don't foresee them getting very far without dramatic developments and innovation with segmented carbon fiber pressure vessels, which sounds rather unlikely.

??? I guess I'm missing something here (Is this OT??) I thought the plan was to build and launch from south Texas, or is this thread an exercise in speculation? I know it has just been 'reactivated', but thought they were headed this way (to south Texas) back in 2011.

This thread is an exercise in speculation, but SpaceX has never specified where they are going to build the bigger stages. It's not really out of the question for initial production to happen in LA.

I don't foresee them getting very far without dramatic developments and innovation with segmented carbon fiber pressure vessels, which sounds rather unlikely.

I'm not sure where you're coming from in any part of this post.

They already have a 10m cf tank test item that has been pressure tested. What's the massive and unlikely leap left that you think they need?

??? I guess I'm missing something here (Is this OT??) I thought the plan was to build and launch from south Texas, or is this thread an exercise in speculation? I know it has just been 'reactivated', but thought they were headed this way (to south Texas) back in 2011.

This thread is an exercise in speculation, but SpaceX has never specified where they are going to build the bigger stages. It's not really out of the question for initial production to happen in LA.

I don't foresee them getting very far without dramatic developments and innovation with segmented carbon fiber pressure vessels, which sounds rather unlikely.

I'm not sure where you're coming from in any part of this post.

They already have a 10m cf tank test item that has been pressure tested. What's the massive and unlikely leap left that you think they need?

The unannounced destruction of their first structural test article suggests that the ITS' composite tanks will require some significant developments in multi-part composite structure fabrication to meet design strength, or the use of a one piece tank.

The unannounced destruction of their first structural test article suggests that the ITS' composite tanks will require some significant developments in multi-part composite structure fabrication to meet design strength, or the use of a one piece tank.

I don't think it suggests that - all those pictures suggest to me is that the tank (unexpectedly or predicted) failed under conditions that we have no insight into to my knowledge. Or (less likely) perhaps it didn't fail at all but served its purpose and is not worth transporting to storage (Hawthorne/McGregor/etc) in one piece so is being destroyed for easy disposal.

The first three attempts to reach orbit in Falcon 1 failed. F9Dev1 (aka Grasshopper 2) blew up while testing landing technology in Texas. None of those things meant the development programs were failing. They were failures along the way, which is the normal course of things when developing new technology.

Should we be surprised to find out SpaceX had a test tank for ITS blow up? Not really. Should we conclude that if they did the program is halted or has run into an insurmountable hurdle? Definitely not.

Didn't SpaceX say they were going to build ITS at the launch site? They could still build the engines and some other at Hawthorne.

I think building at the Launch site was the original idea.However, in the IAC speech Elon indicated the ITS would probably be constructed in several states and assembled at the launch site (39-A).source: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41250.msg1590018#msg1590018

If west coast locations like Hawthorne are considered then maybe the Seattle area should be considered since this is where the test tank was tested.

As I was driving yesterday down the 405 yesterday to the in-law's house for 4th of July. I couldn't help but notice the former S-II assembly building in Seal Beach. What is the conditions of the Former North American (Now Boeing) S-II assembly facilities in Seal Beach?

As I was driving yesterday down the 405 yesterday to the in-law's house for 4th of July. I couldn't help but notice the former S-II assembly building in Seal Beach. What is the conditions of the Former North American (Now Boeing) S-II assembly facilities in Seal Beach?

Says here they're moving people out of Huntington Beach and into Seal Beach & elsewhere.

Setting aside the more sensible options (Texas) and the more fanciful options (Zeppelins), the size of the stage they could build in Hawthorne really comes down to the tooling and the road transport to the port.

Looking at the factory floor now it's not that hard to imagine cores twice as wide. i.e., 7.5 m diameter, but what about length? Twice as long? Doesn't seem like there's room... maybe they'll need to extend the hangar?

Even then, I find it hard to imagine anything that big going south down the 110 to the Port of LA.

Looking at the factory floor now it's not that hard to imagine cores twice as wide. i.e., 7.5 m diameter, but what about length? Twice as long? Doesn't seem like there's room... maybe they'll need to extend the hangar?

If the special core is not going to use the same tooling and production sequences of the current Falcon 9 cores (which if it's composite construction it wouldn't), then they would have to shut down the existing Falcon 9 core production line while they build the special core. I don't see that happening.

But maybe they have room somewhere else in their Hawthorne facility (or buildings nearby they could rent) and they'll set up a temporary production facility? That would be my guess.

Is somebody ambitious enough to take a map of the area and highlight all the buildings owned by SpaceX?

I gather they would have easy access to the runway there. I think in terms of largest practicable diameter core from Hawthorn, I think the barge idea through Panama is not cost effective. What about air lift like StratoLaunch? Someone pointed out that the clearance is 6 meters so maybe the maximum core it could carry would be about 5m? A helicopter could carry a 5m stage from SpaceX to LA airport where StratoLaunch could land. I think this would be a much cheaper option to a barge through Panama. On this basis I think the largest stage out of Hawthorn would be 5m.

Just for reference, the ITS optimal diameter would be 12 to 15 meters, 10m would be a skinny tall version.

Even then, I find it hard to imagine anything that big going south down the 110 to the Port of LA.

As discussed earlier in the thread, it would go Northwest to Marina del Rey, not South to the Port of LA. The proof of concept for this is the movement of the Shuttle orbiter and external tank from Marina del Rey to the California Science Center. It's doable, if disruptive and expensive. Unknown max diameter and length with current infrastructure.

The unannounced destruction of their first structural test article suggests that the ITS' composite tanks will require some significant developments in multi-part composite structure fabrication to meet design strength, or the use of a one piece tank.

Just dredging this up after finally getting some insight into the tank failure.

The unannounced destruction of their first structural test article suggests that the ITS' composite tanks will require some significant developments in multi-part composite structure fabrication to meet design strength, or the use of a one piece tank.

Just dredging this up after finally getting some insight into the tank failure.

They most certainly did successfully make and test this tank.

Even more significant for me was that the failure in the video didn't seem to occur along the seam (assuming it was tested in the orientation we saw it in earlier photos)